POLITICS - Which Candidate Can You Trust with Your Guns?

[Bogie35]

Thanks a lot guys. I've learned my lesson about being facetious in my posts. Thanks to 6 members (I counted them) who apparently aren't smart enough to recognize facetiousness, several people on this thread actually believe that I'm voting for Hillary!

Thanks again,
bogie

[Leverdude]

Think the threat is over? Hello?

http://www.greatamericanjournal.com/Techniguy/Nukes/

This is not a conspiracy theory. It's the stated goal of al qaida, and it's considered real by the US government.

If they think this is a threat seriously then our troops ought to be withdrawn & we nuke where we know he's at. I dont believe for a minute they dont know his whereabouts. At the very least we ought to march out of Iraq & into the Pakistan Mountains where he might actually be.
One thing thats for sure is whatever we do over there he overwhelming result will be that the people left hate us. They hated us before we went, they hate us when we're there & they'll hate us after. What good is giving them targets?

I remember 9/11 real good. Lucky me could see them burning & falling. Real close to home. Not a single Iraqi there either, just Saudi's. This war is pretty much beyond justifiable from a 9/11 standpoint. Its Bush's baby & we wont know how bad he screwed it up until he's gone.

If there a threat, nuetralize it, then go home.

[Leverdude]

Thanks a lot guys. I've learned my lesson about being facetious in my posts. Thanks to 6 members (I counted them) who apparently aren't smart enough to recognize facetiousness, several people on this thread actually believe that I'm voting for Hillary!

Thanks again,
bogie

I think most people understood you.

[Bogie35]

Thanks Leverdude.

You know... I just remembered that I made a New Years resolution to not fire off at anyone. I made it 5 days! That's a personal best!

Sincerely,
bogie

[Bogie35]

Think the threat is over? Hello?

http://www.greatamericanjournal.com/Techniguy/Nukes/

This is not a conspiracy theory. It's the stated goal of al qaida, and it's considered real by the US government.

If they think this is a threat seriously then our troops ought to be withdrawn & we nuke where we know he's at. I dont believe for a minute they dont know his whereabouts. At the very least we ought to march out of Iraq & into the Pakistan Mountains where he might actually be.
One thing thats for sure is whatever we do over there he overwhelming result will be that the people left hate us. They hated us before we went, they hate us when we're there & they'll hate us after. What good is giving them targets?

I remember 9/11 real good. Lucky me could see them burning & falling. Real close to home. Not a single Iraqi there either, just Saudi's. This war is pretty much beyond justifiable from a 9/11 standpoint. Its Bush's baby & we wont know how bad he screwed it up until he's gone.

If there a threat, nuetralize it, then go home.

Very true. I'm especially with you on:

"I dont believe for a minute they dont know his whereabouts."

We have technology that can read the date on a penny from outer space, but we can't locate a very tall arab dragging around a dialysis machine? Hmmmm..."there's a foul smell in Denmark".

Sincerely,
bogie

[Swampman]

Surely no one can believe that catching or killing Osama bin Laden would accomplish anything. 10 more muslim jerks will take his place the next day.

[FWiedner]

Surely no one can believe that catching or killing Osama bin Laden would accomplish anything. 10 more muslim jerks will take his place the next day.

The President of the United States said that he would capture and prosecute the person or person(s) responsible for the most devestating attack on United States citizens in history. The person(s) identified by the President and his administration as most responsible is Osama bin Laden and the Al Queda organization.

10 more muslim jerks stepping up are 10 more muslim jerks to be reduced, but he said he would capture this one and bring him to justice.

He didn't have any problem committing American forces to an illegal war of aggressive conquest to carry out his personal vendetta of hunting down, capturing, and executing Saddam Hussein. But bin Ladin isn't worth the trouble?

You don't see any political capital attached to the capture of Osama bin Laden?

By failing to accomplish this single task on behalf of the American People, the President has demonstrated that his oath is worthless.

[Grizz]

It is not an illegal war. Regardless what you say, you're wrong.

IT IS NOT AN ILLEGAL WAR.

I don't care who you hate, but you're blinded by it and irrational.

It is not illegal to defend against this:

http://w3.newsmax.com/a/dayofislam/

And it is fatally STUPID to wait for the strike. And it is immoral to wait for it, because it is immoral not to prevent that from happening by ALL AND EVERY MEANS AVAILABLE.

You Bush-haters are gonna be the biggest whiners if you survive this attack.

It's like talking to a tree..,

[FWiedner]

International law provides only two justifications for war:

The use of force is authorised in self-defence, or when an armed attack occurs or is imminent.

The Bush administration fabricated a radical doctrine of "pre-emptive" self-defence. That is, the right to use force to prevent a future attack by another state, even when there is no concrete evidence that an attack has been planned.

The argument was that Iraq held aggressive intentions towards the United States, held stocks of weapons of mass destruction, and constituted an ongoing threat to the United States.

Herod used the same logic when he butchered the infants of Bethlehem.

Iraq was literally disarmed against the forces of the United States after Gulf-War I, and it was demonstrated time and again by international inspectors that they did not have a stock of WMD. Iraq had nothing to do with the events of 9/11, and had no viable force moving against the United States or it's People.

The requirements for justification of war under international law are minute and simple. George Bush and his government failed to meet the standard by any measure.

.

[Old Ironsights]

...By failing to accomplish this single task on behalf of the American People, the President has demonstrated that his oath is worthless.

I can find only ONE politician who does not seem to have violated his Oath to Defend the Constitution.

So AFAIC there is only one choice for ANYTHING and the rest should be dragged out by their heels.

No conspiracy theories needed.

[Old Ironsights]

Actually, even "Just War Theory" (Rawles et al) accepts preemptive war as legitimate, just not preventative war.

There is a difference. (I'm not going to argue on which side of the line Gulf II was - what's done is done. We have to deal with it.)

Preemptive War is essentially what we did on Gulf I and the Isralies did during the 6 days war. We saw that there was a credible threat of imminent attack and literally "drew first".

Preventative War makes no such assumption, relying on "mights" and "coulds" as justification for agression. You can't draw on someone because he "might" or "could" be a threat.

[Old Ironsights]

And it is fatally STUPID to wait for the strike. And it is immoral to wait for it, because it is immoral not to prevent that from happening by ALL AND EVERY MEANS AVAILABLE....

I'm not a Bush Hater Grizz...

Following your line of reasoning, the question becomes "where do we stop?" Do we not stop until we have killed every single Muslim and occupied the smouldering wreckage of their countries?

If you think that is a good Idea, I would suggest you go ahead and start by assaulting the Madrassa closest to you and see what happens.

It wouldn't matter if there was a dozen islamofacist splodeydopes inside, YOU would still die/go to jail for illigitamate use of force. That is what we are talking about here. The principle applies for nations as well as individuals.

[El Mac]

International law provides only two justifications for war:

The use of force is authorised in self-defence, or when an armed attack occurs or is imminent.

Thats nice. Now you relegate your sovereignty to a bunch of internationalists? Those same seatholes are the ones that are trying to disarm the last bastion of gun owners...us. Citizens of the United States.

Last time I checked, the oaths that I have taken in my life had nothing to do with "international law"... That term is a non-sequitor.

[Old Ironsights]

International law provides only two justifications for war:

The use of force is authorised in self-defence, or when an armed attack occurs or is imminent.

Thats nice. Now you relegate your sovereignty to a bunch of internationalists? Those same seatholes are the ones that are trying to disarm the last bastion of gun owners...us. Citizens of the United States.

Last time I checked, the oaths that I have taken in my life had nothing to do with "international law"... That term is a non-sequitor.

Looks like FW is as conflicted on certain aspects of Foreign Policy as I.

Either we play nice with "international law" and wear blue berets as the UN's police force, or we turn the UN building over to those corporations displaced on 9/11 and get back to a Constitutional/Ethical forign policy.

[Grizz]

OI, did you read the document I linked?

Where do we stop? We stop when all the muslims who are trying to destroy our country and western civilization are dead, or they genuinely give up. That's victory, and that's the exit strategy.

All your hypotheticals are completely missing the point. The point is that there is mortal danger to the existence of the Nation.

You need to read what our enemies have stated and TAKE IT AT FACE VALUE and ACT ACCORDINGLY.

Once you understand the threat your moral ambivilance will dissolve.

PLEASE READ THE DOCUMENTS I POSTED, YOUR ARGUMENTS FROM A VACCUUM SOUND SILLY TO ME.

http://w3.newsmax.com/a/dayofislam/

Regards,

Grizz

[Grizz]

America's Constitution has no bearing on "international law", and "international law" is meaningless and has no bearing on American National Sovereignty.

screw international law, there is no international law maker...

http://w3.newsmax.com/a/dayofislam/

it's like talking to a tree..,

Grizz

[Old Ironsights]

Grizz... "explosive new books" don't interest me. They are, by definition, full of Hyperbole and ravings.

As a matter of fact and record I am a frequent reader of Jihad Watch, Dhimmi Watch, and Daniel Pipes.org among others - so I KNOW what the Islamofacists have said.

I also know that until they act and show themselves AT THE POINT OF CONTACT the only way to eliminate them is a funny little thing called Genocide.

I mean, I suppose I could just walk over to the Projects and set them afire and kill every Black/Hispanic male that ran out, rather than just waiting for the Criminals among the innocent to actually attempt to rob/hurt me but I really dont think that would be appropriate... do you?

[FWiedner]

America's Constitution has no bearing on "international law", and "international law" is meaningless and has no bearing on American National Sovereignty.

screw international law, there is no international law maker...

http://w3.newsmax.com/a/dayofislam/

it's like talking to a tree..,

Grizz

Absolutely wrong.

The United States of America, whether you like it or not is a member nation in a world community.

International law may have no bearing on Constitutional issues of law and sovereignty within our borders, but it most certainly does with regard to our citizens's and nation's conduct when dealing with other nations, especially when dealing with matters of trade and martial aggression.

[Grizz]

OI,

So, if I understand you correctly you advise Americans to wait until seven cities are nuked. Then you will feel enough moral energy to, uh, do what?

How are you going to explain to your mutant grand children that you could not morally bear to stop the bombers before the bombs went off?

And what are you going to do, and to whom, after the seven major American cities are destroyed? Do you think the moral high-ground is to wait until it happens? That is incomprehensible.

Hmmm?

Grizz

http://w3.newsmax.com/a/dayofislam/

[Old Ironsights]

Grizz, those are "what if" scenerios. Are you willing to commit Genocide because of What If's generated by blowhards dedicated to scaring you into doing what they want?

We have sufficient technology to track fissionables. What we need to do is control our borders and ports of entry.

[Grizz]

KILLING ENEMY COMBATANTS IS NOT GENOCIDE. I AM WILLING TO SEE AMERICA'S MORTAL ENEMIES DESTROYED.

You throw around the word genocide pretty easily. Were you screaming about it when it was actually happening on clinton's watch? When one tribe of Africans slaughtered another tribe of Africans with machetes? An unarmed tribe. Over a million of them.

That's genocide. Killing sworn enemies who are armed and have the proven track record of making war on civilians, you bet I'm for that. BUT THAT'S NOT GENOCIDE.

I hate the very thought of warfare. I hate the alternative more. And armed conflict will not cease before Jesus Christ sets his feet on Mount Olive.

We committed genocide when we wiped out polio, we killed the poor defenseless polio bugs. Does that bother you? Would you recommend waiting until you have polio before treating it, or did you get a polio shot?

al qaida is like polio. treat it the same way.

[Old Ironsights]

KILLING ENEMY COMBATANTS IS NOT GENOCIDE. I AM WILLING TO SEE AMERICA'S MORTAL ENEMIES DESTROYED.

You throw around the word genocide pretty easily. Were you screaming about it when it was actually happening on clinton's watch? When one tribe of Africans slaughtered another tribe of Africans with machetes? An unarmed tribe. Over a million of them.

As a matter of fact, I was. We should have been there and not Bosnia. But I digress...

That's genocide. Killing sworn enemies who are armed and have the proven track record of making war on civilians, you bet I'm for that. BUT THAT'S NOT GENOCIDE.

Please tell me how you are going to do that until they identify themselves.

That's the problem with NGOs and guerillas/insurgents - you can't tell who they are until they act, so your only options are to kill everyone or wait until they act to kill them.

Genocide or Self Defense. Those are your choices.

I hate the very thought of warfare. I hate the alternative more. And armed conflict will not cease before Jesus Christ sets his feet on Mount Olive.

We committed genocide when we wiped out polio, we killed the poor defenseless polio bugs. Does that bother you? Would you recommend waiting until you have polio before treating it, or did you get a polio shot?

al qaida is like polio. treat it the same way.

Give me a vaccine that kills terrorists and ONLY terrorists and your analogy holds... with my approval.

How good are you at developing bio-agents that target unknown persons who have no distinguishing biological characteristics from everyone else on the planet?

[bunklocoempire]

Caco, thanks for your response, sources and reasoning. I too have had knee jerk reactions with the pre-emptive strike thing or waiting for the attack. As I have mentioned with my neighbor (true scenario), and others have mentioned (more eloquently!) I live my life as a "non-interventionalist" and I will continue to. It doesn't sit well with me that I or we as a Country should wipe out every perceived threat. I/we'd have to kill 'em all.

The reasoning of not letting a country get a hold of a weapon because they might use it, is to me, the same as the anti-gun groups and their "arguments". To bring it back to topic.

In taking care of the bad guys in this world the solution of Letters of marque and reprisal: This constitutional tool can be used to give President Bush another weapon in the war on terrorism. Congress can issue letters of marque against terrorists and their property that authorize the President to name private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to Bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to the current war on terrorism, which will be fought against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas. The goal is to avail ourselves of the intelligence of private parties, who may stand a better chance of finding Bin Laden than we do through a conventional military invasion. Letters of marque also may help us avoid a wider war with Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern nations.

To me this is brilliant, is Constitutional, and has worked in the past with elusive pirates.

I can read peoples actions, I can't read peoples hearts/minds.

Thanks, Bunkloco

[Old Ironsights]

...The reasoning of not letting a country get a hold of a weapon because they might use it, is to me, the same as the anti-gun groups and their "arguments". To bring it back to topic. ...

Dang, man. You how come I get all philosophical and you come up with the RIGHT analogy?

Too durn edjumakated I guess.

I can read peoples actions, I can't read peoples hearts/minds.

+1

[bunklocoempire]

I gotta keep it simple for my own sake!

Thanks, Bunkloco

[ohwin94_61]

Politics

[Grizz]

Old Ironsights,

So, if I understand you correctly, you must think clinton is a big hero and a highly moral human being because he refused to apprehend binladen when the sudanese offered him up. At least twice. And clinton's position is compounded in your eyes when our guys had him in their sights and he refused to kill him outright. And in your view clinton's prestige is multiplied by the fact that he allowed al qaida to go unanswered at every attack, like the Cole and the Kobar towers, assuring their success on september 11.



That's a stunning point of view and it leaves me... stunned.

Grizz

[Leverdude]

I dont know about or care about international law.
I think we shoulda just toppled Hussein & went back to Afganistan. Screw the peacekeeping & nation building. There is no end strategy, I'm not saying that because I hate Bush. I dont hate anyone, but I can admit when I was wrong & realize when someone I voted for turned out to be a not so bright feller.
Or maybe he's real smart. Maybe he's sitting back tickled pink that America is so bound up in his Iraq war they dont even notice that we cant find the terrorist we want, or think we want.

Anyway, I dont care enough about Iraq or terrorists to not care about our constitution. Something else that took some direct hits from our war on terrorism.


Nobody else deserves to be nominated more than Ron Paul. Simply because of his record. The rest dont even compare, if your interested in getting what we all talk about most every day.

[cutter]

To answer the original question; DAVID CROCKETT !!

[RIHMFIRE]

To answer the original question; DAVID CROCKETT !!

and Ronald Reagan

[Old Ironsights]

Old Ironsights,

So, if I understand you correctly, you must think clinton is a big hero and a highly moral human being because he refused to apprehend binladen when the sudanese offered him up. At least twice. And clinton's position is compounded in your eyes when our guys had him in their sights and he refused to kill him outright. And in your view clinton's prestige is multiplied by the fact that he allowed al qaida to go unanswered at every attack, like the Cole and the Kobar towers, assuring their success on september 11.

That's a stunning point of view and it leaves me... stunned.

Well, that's not surprising because it is NOT my point of view, and I have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion.

BinLaden claimed responsibility for multiple acts of agression - even pre 9/11. Clinton most decidedly SHOULD have accepted Sudan's offer, and he SHOULD have had him whacked ASAP. AFAIK that in and of itself puts a great deal of culpability for 9/11 on Clintoon's head.

As for reprisals for Cole & Kobe - did we have a target or should we have just carpet bombed the whole middle east? Maybe we should have just taken out a few cities full of innocent people ourselves - how would that make us any better than the islamofacists that claim they want to do the same to us?

Trick is, we actually have the means to do so and they don't.

[Old Ironsights]

...Anyway, I dont care enough about Iraq or terrorists to not care about our constitution. Something else that took some direct hits from our war on terrorism.


Nobody else deserves to be nominated more than Ron Paul. Simply because of his record. The rest dont even compare, if your interested in getting what we all talk about most every day.

+1

[Grizz]

OI

Trick is, we actually have the means to do so and they don't.

Well now you're being willfully ignorant. al qaida has nukes. Apparently the only thing that will convince you is the mushroom clouds. good luck.

[Caco]

Still at it



"The reasoning of not letting a country get a hold of a weapon because they might use it, is to me, the same as the anti-gun groups and their "arguments". To bring it back to topic. "

Tottally differnt -unalateral agreement on neuclear proliferation+the declared intent to eliminate a country and support terrorism both kind of iffy concerning any international so called laws.
Verses the constitutional (in this country) gurantee of the god given right to defend ones self. not wipe out the city.
Interestiong though-does the second give you the right to own nucs
Dave

[Swampman]

"It is not an illegal war. Regardless what you say, you're wrong.

IT IS NOT AN ILLEGAL WAR."

Amen & amen!

[Old Ironsights]

OI

Trick is, we actually have the means to do so and they don't.

Well now you're being willfully ignorant. al qaida has nukes. Apparently the only thing that will convince you is the mushroom clouds. good luck.

And your belief in this is based upon... what?

Frankly, this level of Conspiracy/Paranoia rivals that of those who believe in the Bavarian Illuminati & the Gnomes of Zurich. FNORD! (you didn't see that...)

You have said yourself that if these losers had nukes they would use them.

Where did they get them? If they have them, why haven't they used them? When it comes to Nukes, there is no strategic advantage to using them later. Even AlGore would turn the ME into Glass after a Nuke attack.

Jeez man, grow a pair and look at reality rather than the agenda driven fearmongering of people with books to sell.

*I* could build a couple of EMP devices in my basement that would require no fissonables but, if detonated strategicaly, would utterly destroy the US economy, cause huge riots and topple whatever government is in power... and it would only take a couple of months... far less if I was funded like these splodydopes are.

Hell, when I was detatched to an EOD unit a buddy & I wrote an FBI White Paper on how 5 guys and $5,000 could do the same thing without explosives.

These 15th Century bozos can hardly figure out a FORK, much less a nuke.

Get a grip and stop reading the Global Security equivelent of "Left Behind".

[Leverdude]

splodydopes

You made that up didn't you?

[Old Ironsights]

splodydopes

You made that up didn't you?

Nope. It is a frequently, and accurately, used epithet on Little Green Footballs and a few other tangentially affiliated anti-islamofascist sites.

I think it pretty well describes people who can barely blow themselves up with a carfull of explosives &/or screw up a simple building demolition so have to fly a plane into it a couple years later to finish the job...

Brainless Prats all. Good thing too. Can you imagine if they were half as smart/resourceful as one of our 5th graders?

[Swampman]

Old Ironsights you commenting on others level of paranoia is amazing. Of all the forums I've ever posted on, you are the most paranoid poster I've ever seen on the net.

I'd be careful about posting what I could accomplish on public forums.

[Leverdude]

I think it pretty well describes people who can barely blow themselves up with a carfull of explosives &/or screw up a simple building demolition so have to fly a plane into it a couple years later to finish the job...
Brainless Prats all. Good thing too. Can you imagine if they were half as smart/resourceful as one of our 5th graders?

Bout like this ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLQScKEm59c

[Old Ironsights]

I think it pretty well describes people who can barely blow themselves up with a carfull of explosives &/or screw up a simple building demolition so have to fly a plane into it a couple years later to finish the job...
Brainless Prats all. Good thing too. Can you imagine if they were half as smart/resourceful as one of our 5th graders?

Bout like this ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLQScKEm59c

Actually, I'm thinking more about the Military.com video of the sorry *** who tried to blow himself & a US convoy up in Iraq... who ended up pinned in his un-exploded car full of UXOs and got to watch as the EOD sent a demo-bot out to send him to Allah.

Pretty funny actually.

[Old Ironsights]

Old Ironsights you commenting on others level of paranoia is amazing. Of all the forums I've ever posted on, you are the most paranoid poster I've ever seen on the net.

I'd be careful about posting what I could accomplish on public forums.

Clue:

Everything I have posted about on other threads has already happened in the US at one level or another. That's not paranoia, that's fact.

As for the rest, The Government already knows who I am and what I'm capable of. Hell, they taught me about 1/2 of what I know and I'll be on the Federal bad times recall roster forever because of it - medical discharge notwithstanding.

[El Mac]

Give it up Grizz... a person either gits it or they don't.

[Old Ironsights]

Give it up Grizz... a person either gits it or they don't.

That's right. You either understand the fundamental differences between a society that condones the killing of random innocents to make a political statement, and one that refuses to do so, or you don't.

[DDude]

I'm still going to keep on supporting Ron Paul... the only candidate who supports the Constitution. The rest of the Repubs are the same ol' garbage warmed over. Like the lead Dem says, it's time for "change". I'm ready for the US to return to a Constitutional representative republic instead of the growing nanny state. Unfortunately I don't think that will ever happen. America is dying. Too bad.

The only solace I have is knowing that I won't leave children behind to endure the slavery of the .gov is putting every American under as it stomps on all the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights, not just the 2A.

edit Just wanted to add that the only purpose for government is to protect our individual freedom. Unfortunately too many Americans view government as the answer to solving their problems (instead of solving their problems on their own). In order for government to solve your problems you have to give up some of your freedom to do this. I just want the government to leave me the hell alone. There is nothing government can do that I can't do myself. And if I can't do it by myself, I've got friends who will help me out.

[El Mac]

Give it up Grizz... a person either gits it or they don't.

That's right. You either understand the fundamental differences between a society that condones the killing of random innocents to make a political statement, and one that refuses to do so, or you don't.

I think the only one advocating killing innocents is the little dude in your head.

[Old Ironsights]

Give it up Grizz... a person either gits it or they don't.

That's right. You either understand the fundamental differences between a society that condones the killing of random innocents to make a political statement, and one that refuses to do so, or you don't.

I think the only one advocating killing innocents is the little dude in your head.

You may want to go back and look at what has been said.

If you have a TARGET - i.e. a known combatant, one who has perpetrated/is perpetrating agression, then I have no qualms whatsoever.

OTOH, much of what has been suggested has been to deny that we should wait until we have an identiafiable target.

If you can't identify your target (beyond "that raghead over there" anyway), then you risk doing what the terrorists do - arbitrairly kill people to make a point.

[Swampman]

"medical discharge notwithstanding."

Now I understand!

[Old Ironsights]

"medical discharge notwithstanding."

Now I understand!

Understand what? That my vision went bad and I could no longer use a Panoramic Telescope so became unpromotable in my MOS?

That rather than let me change MOSs at my ETS they decided to cull me in the RIFs?

You must have read my DD214 or the unclassified portions my records...

Or were you intimating somthing?

[DDude]

I think he was connecting your "medical discharge" with some of your beliefs you've mentioned on this forum... ie, that you're not quite right in the head.